Alleviatin g Poverty 57

This halakhic disinterest in income redistribution is rooted in the notion, discussed above, that human dignity is best supported by developing one’s own resources to escape poverty, rather than by accepting support from public sources. Hence, according to this line of thought, while the basic needs of the poor*® must be addressed, adding redistributive features to public programs can only encourage dependence upon what the public purse has to offer. It is for this reason that Jewish sources tend more toward a“flat tax” approach® to dealing with societal need, wherein the tax burden is apportioned in a fashion that is proportionate, rather than disproportionate, to wealth.*

To be sure, the Social Security tax is, at face value, a“flat tax,” insofar as the tax rate t levied is the same for all. The fact that the benefits are capped for higher income earners, however, makes the net effect of the program redistributive, just as surely as had those higher income earners been taxed at higher rates. Since Judaism seems to favor systems that tax all equally, and that distributing the proceeds on the basis of real need, rather than formula, it follows from this analysis that a halakhic approach to the Social Security retirement benefit would take issue with the redistributive features of the benefit, constituting, as it does, a disproportionate disadvantage to higher income earners.

From a Jewish perspective, however, there is a more serious challenge to Social Security as it is currently constituted than the redistributive problem for not only is the benefit payable to higher income earners capped, but so is the amount of earnings that are subject to Social Security taxes. In 2005, for example, workers paid Social Security taxes on all income up to$ 90,000, but not a penny of taxes on income over that figure. Some six percent of American earners are estimated to have incomes that exceed the$ 90,000 level® Calculations show that, on average, this top six percent paid